Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm) (16 April 2015)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm) (16 April 2015)

The court found that both the residence and inability to pay pre-conditions under CPR 25.13(2) were satisfied. The claimants failed to demonstrate sufficient financial ability to pay costs if ordered, and were resident out of the jurisdiction. It was just to order security for costs in the amount of £1 million. The claimants' attempt to adduce further evidence after the hearing was refused. The court also struck out certain inflammatory and irrelevant evidence filed by the claimants and ordered indemnity costs against them for that conduct.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 996 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC & Others; First Defendant/applicant: Baglan Zhunus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs Under CPR 25 / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Security for Costs and Related Applications
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; claimants' application to adduce further evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Freezing Orders, Fraud Allegations, Jurisdiction, Company Law, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Freezing Orders Fraud Allegations Jurisdiction Company Law Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC & Others

Claimants/respondents

Baglan Zhunus

First Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs Under CPR 25 / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Security for Costs and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be ordered to provide security for costs under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether the residence and inability to pay pre-conditions are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether it is just to make an order for security for costs (the justice test)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the residence and inability to pay pre-conditions under CPR 25.13(2) were satisfied. The claimants failed to demonstrate sufficient financial ability to pay costs if ordered, and were resident out of the jurisdiction. It was just to order security for costs in the amount of £1 million. The claimants' attempt to adduce further evidence after the hearing was refused. The court also struck out certain inflammatory and irrelevant evidence filed by the claimants and ordered indemnity costs against them for that conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; claimants' application to adduce further evidence refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs in the amount of £1,000,000.
  • Claimants' February 2015 application to adduce further evidence refused.